JUDGMENT : Seeking grant of bail in connection to R.C. No.11(A)/2009-AHD-R which was registered for the offences under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and for offence under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner, who is in judicial custody since 15.05.2017, has approached this Court. 2. The petitioner was proprietor of M/s Savitri Sales. Allegation against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons is that they submitted forged and fabricated documents showing inflated price for the articles and in fact some of the witnesses examined by the CBI have admitted that they never signed those documents, one of the witnesses has been made approver in the case. 3. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned ASGI submits that considering the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner, one of the instances is inflated price for purchase of bed-sheet for which the rate approved was Rs.55/- per bed-sheet, however, the rate quoted by the petitioner was Rs.125/- showing the price Rs.55/- per metre, he does not deserve bail in this case. Another ground raised for resisting this application for bail is that the petitioner has supplied sub-standard medicines and he was absconding from 14.05.2016 till 14.05.2017. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that only when a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted he was arrayed as an accused in this case. The cognizance order dated 25.04.2014 was challenged by him in Cr. M.P. No.1838 of 2014, which was dismissed on 11.02.2016. Thereafter, he moved an application for anticipatory bail vide, ABP No.23 of 2015 before the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, however, without success. He came to this Court in ABA No.899 of 2016 which was dismissed on 22.08.2016, and then he preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8366 of 2016 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.11.2016. 5. Narrating the aforesaid chronology of events, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who has filed different petitions, remained within the jurisdiction of the Court and while so it cannot be said that he was an absconder. 6. 5. Narrating the aforesaid chronology of events, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who has filed different petitions, remained within the jurisdiction of the Court and while so it cannot be said that he was an absconder. 6. It appears that not only in the main case, the accused persons who have been arrayed as accused in the supplementary charge-sheet have also been granted bail by another co-ordinate Benches of this Court, more particularly, vide B.A. No.6452 of 2017, B.A. No.8562 of 2017, B.A. No.9606 of 2017 and B.A. No.8488 of 2017 (Kunj Bihari Goyal @ Kunj Bihari Goyel- brother of the petitioner). 7. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned ASGI has tried to distinguish these bail orders stating that some of the accused persons are either sleeping partners or allegations against them were not identical. 8. Be that as it may, the prosecution intends to examine 493 witnesses and it has produced 4241 documents to prove the charge against the accused persons. Evidently, the trial would take long time. The petitioner has now remained in judicial custody for more than 7 and half months. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner namely, Jyoti Goel is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in connection with R.C. No.11(A)/2009-AHD-R on the following conditions: (i) he shall not change his place of residence without prior permission of the court, (ii) he shall not influence the witnesses, and (iii) he shall appear before the trial court during the trial on each and every date, except for just excuse, for which an appropriate application shall be filed in the trial court. 10. The instant application is allowed. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court through 'FAX'.